On 11-06-17 09:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote:
If that's not "appealing to an authority" then I don't know the
meaning of simple English sentences.
You do know the meaning of simple English sentences, but this meaning
does not apply to formal logic. Words and expressions in daily
language often mean something different from what they do in a
specialized academic context. I was referring the academic meaning of
"fallacious appeal to authority."
OK, your point.
I said "appeal to authority", you said "fallacious appeal to authority"
... what I'm talking about is neither fallacious, nor a logical
fallacy, it's merely not a convincing proof of anything.
It is commonly used by people who either have no actual evidence to
bolster their position, or have sufficiently limited knowledge that they
can't argue the position themselves. In either case the weight of the
argument depends vitally on the degree to which the target of the appeal
really is an authority, because there is nothing else on which to base it.
Rossi's assertion is not in this category because -- as I said
-- Galantini is a bona fide relevant authority.
That does not mean Galantini is right. It means it is not a logical
fallacy to cite his opinion as supporting evidence for the claim.
Bosh. Their definition is far narrower than the way the phrase
"appeal to authority" is actually used . . .
Not when you are discussion formal logic.
, and is far narrower than makes sense.
No, it makes good sense. This school of logic is thousands of years
old and has been carefully thought out. You should not assume that you
know better than philosophers and logicians.
True.
And that's an appeal to authority, too, by the way... <g>
In this case, Rossi has quoted an authority regarding the steam
... but the evidence used by that authority has never been
revealed. Consequently, we are left with a simple "appeal to
authority", which, by itself, can never prove anything.
A proper (non-fallacious) appeal to authority cannot prove anything,
but it is good supporting evidence. As I said, it would not be
suitable in an academic conference talking to scientists, but it is
perfectly okay when talking to reporters. Rossi treated Krivit as a
reporter. He wanted to treat me that way, but I did not want to attend
in that capacity. I am only interested in making my own measurements
with my own instruments and techniques (sparging, in the case of
steam). I fully understand why Rossi did not want me to do that, and I
have no objection.
My point is that before you enter into a discussion with someone about
a technical subject, it is a good idea to establish the ground rules
and your roles. If Krivit shows in a lab as a reporter to interview
people, carrying a voice recorder and camera, there is nothing wrong
with a properly formed appeal to authority. Naturally, the argument is
strengthened with data and information on the instrument, but an
appeal to authority is logically sound. If I show up carrying an Omega
HH12B dual input thermocouple, it would be preposterous to tell me
that I should take it on authority that the temperature is 101 deg C.
I made it clear before I left that I would come to read instruments,
not to hear what people have to say.
This is the difference between science, and everything else: In
religion, in the military, in government, in business, in school,
you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we should all JUMP!" and
everybody jumps. In science, you can say "Joe Blow Honcho said we
should all JUMP!" and the usual response is, "What was his
reasoning, and what's his data?"
My point is that journalism is not science. Different rules apply.
What is considered a logical fallacy in one is permitted in the other.
- Jed
